SKYFALL: Is this the best Bond film?

Resurrection

Octopussy wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

And M doesn't react?

This is Dench's expression throughout the entire film. It does not change.

suavejmf

Skyfall is overrated, it’s a good Bond but it gets overrated because of how big of a hit it was, and so many people who aren’t necessarily huge Bond fans saw it and loved it. So it’s good, but there are definitely 14 Bond films that are better IMO.

In the Craig era, Casino Royale is far far superior....from its first frames, Casino Royale promises to restore the trimmed-down urgency of the early Sean Connery outings as Bond. Casino Royale exceeds expectations, presenting a Bond both leaner and meaner than any that has come before. That this is the best Bond flick in nearly four decades is beyond reasonable dispute; whether it's better even than the early Connery's is a subject worthy of debate.

PS. The 'no gunbarrel' at the start of SF is unforgivable.

Univex

suavejmf wrote: »

whether it's better even than the early Connery's is a subject worthy of debate

It is not! There is no debate there. The first 4 Connery films are untouchable. You put OHMSS on your fifth finger and you've got a hand filled with perfect masterpieces.

Besides, they were so good that we've still rambling about them many many decades after they were released. They started the whole shebang.

I don't care how good CR and SF are, and I don't care how good Craig is. He's not Connery and his films are no where near the experience of the first 4.

And I love Craig and CR and SF.

Is SF the best Bond film?

No! of course not. Unless you're talking film-school wise, technically I mean. It's got a brilliant director and cinematographer, a stellar cast and a good song. But it hasn't got a good James Bond story adventure, it hasn't got the most exotic locations, it hasn't got many quintessential elements of what makes James Bond...well...James Bond. So, is it a cracking good film? Yes, absolutely. And very rewatchable. But is the best James Bond film? No. Not in the slightest.

But I did enjoy your review immensely, @Pierce2Daniel.

mtm

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

Octopussy wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

And M doesn't react?

This is Dench's expression throughout the entire film. It does not change.

The Dame does not overact.

Personally, I find Judi’s performance to be terrific. She’s supposed to be cold and professional. However, you can see the mask slipping and she really does look her age (which helps with the character’s arc). Essentially, the chickens come home to roost and M has to bear the weight of her sins.

M has that stiff British upper-lip. She doesn’t want to let you know that she’s weak and vulnerable. But she is certainly coming undone in the film.

Arguably it’s the best acting that has appeared in a Bond film. Especially, the Tennyson speech. She was rightfully nominated for a BAFTA and should have got the Oscar nomination.

It's what I rather like about Craig in the role: he never overacts and in fact his Bond barely changes expression because a man like that wouldn't. But that doesn't mean he's not conveying an awful lot: it's just that acting is more than just pulling faces.

Shardlake

jobo wrote: »

I appreciate the Fleming purists out there, but honestly, the man has been dead for almost sixty years. I am aware there are still segments of unused Fleming material existing, and you could potentialy stitch them together somehow, but the bottom line is that for the series to survive you have to be inventive. And for an ongoing film series depicting the life of one solitary character, it is simply inevitable that some character exploration has to take place, at least from time to time. You can claim, perhaps justified (although that is a matter of opinion), that they have gone a little overboard with this during the Craig era. But the reality is that if Bond remains nothing but a stale and dated stamp icon with no more meat on the bone than what Fleming gave us 60 years ago, he would not survive for long in the modern era.

Nostalgia alone is not enough to drive the series forward. Cinematic Bond has always been dependent on taking risks and evolve with the times. Cubby Broccoli would be the first to admit that.

+1

TripAces

mtm wrote: »

I think we're being silly now.

Yes.

00Agent

jobo wrote: »

I appreciate the Fleming purists out there, but honestly, the man has been dead for almost sixty years. I am aware there are still segments of unused Fleming material existing, and you could potentialy stitch them together somehow, but the bottom line is that for the series to survive you have to be inventive. And for an ongoing film series depicting the life of one solitary character, it is simply inevitable that some character exploration has to take place, at least from time to time. You can claim, perhaps justified (although that is a matter of opinion), that they have gone a little overboard with this during the Craig era. But the reality is that if Bond remains nothing but a stale and dated stamp icon with no more meat on the bone than what Fleming gave us 60 years ago, he would not survive for long in the modern era.

Nostalgia alone is not enough to drive the series forward. Cinematic Bond has always been dependent on taking risks and evolve with the times. Cubby Broccoli would be the first to admit that.

Whoa, hold your horses there for a second.
This is a point that is very near and dear to my heart. I can see where you are coming from but don't lump all "Fleming purists" together.

I consider myself a Fleming purist, and i can see that influence very much in SF, but it's more of a spiritual connection to Fleming than a literal one. And i believe if the franchise didn't had some connection, be it literal or spiritual, to Fleming, it would be dead in an instant (as it should be, see black/female/transgender Bond and whatever crap).

EoN has always taken great liberties with Flemings writing starting from Dr. No, but they've learned their lesson somewhere down the line in my opinion. But that doesn't mean that you will satisfy everybody, every one has his own interpretation even when reading Fleming. And it will inevitably lead to endless debates in today's world.

suavejmf

Univex wrote: »

suavejmf wrote: »

whether it's better even than the early Connery's is a subject worthy of debate

It is not! There is no debate there. The first 4 Connery films are untouchable. You put OHMSS on your fifth finger and you've got a hand filled with perfect masterpieces.

Besides, they were so good that we've still rambling about them many many decades after they were released. They started the whole shebang.

I don't care how good CR and SF are, and I don't care how good Craig is. He's not Connery and his films are no where near the experience of the first 4.

And I love Craig and CR and SF.

Is SF the best Bond film?

No! of course not. Unless you're talking film-school wise, technically I mean. It's got a brilliant director and cinematographer, a stellar cast and a good song. But it hasn't got a good James Bond story adventure, it hasn't got the most exotic locations, it hasn't got many quintessential elements of what makes James Bond...well...James Bond. So, is it a cracking good film? Yes, absolutely. And very rewatchable. But is the best James Bond film? No. Not in the slightest.

But I did enjoy your review immensely, @Pierce2Daniel.

When did I say Craig was better than Connery? Connery is clearly the best Bond. But IMO CR is ‘up there’ with the early Connery's. No other film in the series is as good as the first 4 and OHMSS I agree. But CR is ‘up there’ IMO.

Ps. Skyfall isn’t.

Univex

suavejmf wrote: »

Univex wrote: »

suavejmf wrote: »

whether it's better even than the early Connery's is a subject worthy of debate

It is not! There is no debate there. The first 4 Connery films are untouchable. You put OHMSS on your fifth finger and you've got a hand filled with perfect masterpieces.

Besides, they were so good that we've still rambling about them many many decades after they were released. They started the whole shebang.

I don't care how good CR and SF are, and I don't care how good Craig is. He's not Connery and his films are no where near the experience of the first 4.

And I love Craig and CR and SF.

Is SF the best Bond film?

No! of course not. Unless you're talking film-school wise, technically I mean. It's got a brilliant director and cinematographer, a stellar cast and a good song. But it hasn't got a good James Bond story adventure, it hasn't got the most exotic locations, it hasn't got many quintessential elements of what makes James Bond...well...James Bond. So, is it a cracking good film? Yes, absolutely. And very rewatchable. But is the best James Bond film? No. Not in the slightest.

But I did enjoy your review immensely, @Pierce2Daniel.

When did I say Craig was better than Connery? Connery is clearly the best Bond. But IMO CR is ‘up there’ with the early Connery's. No other film in the series is as good as the first 4 and OHMSS I agree. But CR is ‘up there’ IMO.

Ps. Skyfall isn’t.

You didn't, old pal, I just took your lead and went with it ;)

CR would be on one of the other five fingers of the other hand :)

jobo

00Agent wrote: »

jobo wrote: »

I appreciate the Fleming purists out there, but honestly, the man has been dead for almost sixty years. I am aware there are still segments of unused Fleming material existing, and you could potentialy stitch them together somehow, but the bottom line is that for the series to survive you have to be inventive. And for an ongoing film series depicting the life of one solitary character, it is simply inevitable that some character exploration has to take place, at least from time to time. You can claim, perhaps justified (although that is a matter of opinion), that they have gone a little overboard with this during the Craig era. But the reality is that if Bond remains nothing but a stale and dated stamp icon with no more meat on the bone than what Fleming gave us 60 years ago, he would not survive for long in the modern era.

Nostalgia alone is not enough to drive the series forward. Cinematic Bond has always been dependent on taking risks and evolve with the times. Cubby Broccoli would be the first to admit that.

Whoa, hold your horses there for a second.
This is a point that is very near and dear to my heart. I can see where you are coming from but don't lump all "Fleming purists" together.

I consider myself a Fleming purist, and i can see that influence very much in SF, but it's more of a spiritual connection to Fleming than a literal one. And i believe if the franchise didn't had some connection, be it literal or spiritual, to Fleming, it would be dead in an instant (as it should be, see black/female/transgender Bond and whatever crap).

EoN has always taken great liberties with Flemings writing starting from Dr. No, but they've learned their lesson somewhere down the line in my opinion. But that doesn't mean that you will satisfy everybody, every one has his own interpretation even when reading Fleming. And it will inevitably lead to endless debates in today's world.

Don´t get me wrong, @00Agent. I fully concur that the spirit of Fleming is vital for the series and that the best films are the ones that stay close to it. In fact I consider myself somewhat of a Fleming purist myself. My comment was directly adressing those on the thread that were claiming further character exploration was somehow disrespectful to Fleming because they are not his ideas outright. They miss the point completely I think.

GoldenGun

Univex wrote: »

suavejmf wrote: »

Univex wrote: »

suavejmf wrote: »

whether it's better even than the early Connery's is a subject worthy of debate

It is not! There is no debate there. The first 4 Connery films are untouchable. You put OHMSS on your fifth finger and you've got a hand filled with perfect masterpieces.

Besides, they were so good that we've still rambling about them many many decades after they were released. They started the whole shebang.

I don't care how good CR and SF are, and I don't care how good Craig is. He's not Connery and his films are no where near the experience of the first 4.

And I love Craig and CR and SF.

Is SF the best Bond film?

No! of course not. Unless you're talking film-school wise, technically I mean. It's got a brilliant director and cinematographer, a stellar cast and a good song. But it hasn't got a good James Bond story adventure, it hasn't got the most exotic locations, it hasn't got many quintessential elements of what makes James Bond...well...James Bond. So, is it a cracking good film? Yes, absolutely. And very rewatchable. But is the best James Bond film? No. Not in the slightest.

But I did enjoy your review immensely, @Pierce2Daniel.

When did I say Craig was better than Connery? Connery is clearly the best Bond. But IMO CR is ‘up there’ with the early Connery's. No other film in the series is as good as the first 4 and OHMSS I agree. But CR is ‘up there’ IMO.

Ps. Skyfall isn’t.

You didn't, old pal, I just took your lead and went with it ;)

CR would be on one of the other five fingers of the other hand :)

Just out of curiosity, would that other hand also include TSWLM, TLD, GE and perhaps either LALD or LTK?

00Agent

jobo wrote: »

00Agent wrote: »

jobo wrote: »

I appreciate the Fleming purists out there, but honestly, the man has been dead for almost sixty years. I am aware there are still segments of unused Fleming material existing, and you could potentialy stitch them together somehow, but the bottom line is that for the series to survive you have to be inventive. And for an ongoing film series depicting the life of one solitary character, it is simply inevitable that some character exploration has to take place, at least from time to time. You can claim, perhaps justified (although that is a matter of opinion), that they have gone a little overboard with this during the Craig era. But the reality is that if Bond remains nothing but a stale and dated stamp icon with no more meat on the bone than what Fleming gave us 60 years ago, he would not survive for long in the modern era.

Nostalgia alone is not enough to drive the series forward. Cinematic Bond has always been dependent on taking risks and evolve with the times. Cubby Broccoli would be the first to admit that.

Whoa, hold your horses there for a second.
This is a point that is very near and dear to my heart. I can see where you are coming from but don't lump all "Fleming purists" together.

I consider myself a Fleming purist, and i can see that influence very much in SF, but it's more of a spiritual connection to Fleming than a literal one. And i believe if the franchise didn't had some connection, be it literal or spiritual, to Fleming, it would be dead in an instant (as it should be, see black/female/transgender Bond and whatever crap).

EoN has always taken great liberties with Flemings writing starting from Dr. No, but they've learned their lesson somewhere down the line in my opinion. But that doesn't mean that you will satisfy everybody, every one has his own interpretation even when reading Fleming. And it will inevitably lead to endless debates in today's world.

Don't get me wrong, @00Agent. I fully concur that the spirit of Fleming is vital for the series and that the best films are the ones that stay close to it. In fact I consider myself somewhat of a Fleming purist myself. My comment was directly adressing those on the thread that were claiming further character exploration was disrespectful to Fleming because they are not his ideas outright. They miss the point completely I think.

I see, and i agree, the series can not live on by simply recycling old ideas ad infinitum but it can live on by staying true to the mood, essence and attitude of the novels, and finding new ways to express that.

Pierce2Daniel

Sam Mendes directed the hell out of this film, he dropped the ball slightly with SP. But with SF, he directed it as if his life depended on it. He had a lot to prove with SF - whilst he was an Oscar-winning director. His star had fallen and he was looking a little over praised and coasting of 'American Beauty'. He knew it, hence why he put everything into SF. Thanks to Bond, he's back

I also love how articulate he is. He really convey well what he was trying to do.

Mathis1

Birdleson wrote: »

As to M by the coffins, I thought it was a very memorable image, as it was used in the trailers. In fact, until this conversation, I assumed it was one of the iconic images of the film.

Am not a fan of SF, but that was a very strong image in the film, preceded by the explosion which was also memorable!

suavejmf

Univex wrote: »

suavejmf wrote: »

Univex wrote: »

suavejmf wrote: »

whether it's better even than the early Connery's is a subject worthy of debate

It is not! There is no debate there. The first 4 Connery films are untouchable. You put OHMSS on your fifth finger and you've got a hand filled with perfect masterpieces.

Besides, they were so good that we've still rambling about them many many decades after they were released. They started the whole shebang.

I don't care how good CR and SF are, and I don't care how good Craig is. He's not Connery and his films are no where near the experience of the first 4.

And I love Craig and CR and SF.

Is SF the best Bond film?

No! of course not. Unless you're talking film-school wise, technically I mean. It's got a brilliant director and cinematographer, a stellar cast and a good song. But it hasn't got a good James Bond story adventure, it hasn't got the most exotic locations, it hasn't got many quintessential elements of what makes James Bond...well...James Bond. So, is it a cracking good film? Yes, absolutely. And very rewatchable. But is the best James Bond film? No. Not in the slightest.

But I did enjoy your review immensely, @Pierce2Daniel.

When did I say Craig was better than Connery? Connery is clearly the best Bond. But IMO CR is ‘up there’ with the early Connery's. No other film in the series is as good as the first 4 and OHMSS I agree. But CR is ‘up there’ IMO.

Ps. Skyfall isn’t.

You didn't, old pal, I just took your lead and went with it ;)

CR would be on one of the other five fingers of the other hand :)

Fair enough mate.

00Agent

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

Sam Mendes directed the hell out of this film, he dropped the ball slightly with SP. But with SF, he directed it as if his life depended on it. He had a lot to prove with SF - whilst he was an Oscar-winning director. His star had fallen and he was looking a little over praised and coasting of 'American Beauty'. He knew it, hence why he put everything into SF. Thanks to Bond, he's back

I also love how articulate he is. He really convey well what he was trying to do.

Great interviews.
What just dawned on me is that I have seen tons of interviews of Mendes and many others involved with Skyfall, but i never heard John Logan talk about it before.
It's something that i should definitly change.

As a little teaser i found this snippet from the Premiere.


At the end he says it, they wanted to capture the "feeling of Fleming", straight from the Books, which in my opinion they more than succeeded with.

suavejmf

GoldenGun wrote: »

Univex wrote: »

suavejmf wrote: »

Univex wrote: »

suavejmf wrote: »

whether it's better even than the early Connery's is a subject worthy of debate

It is not! There is no debate there. The first 4 Connery films are untouchable. You put OHMSS on your fifth finger and you've got a hand filled with perfect masterpieces.

Besides, they were so good that we've still rambling about them many many decades after they were released. They started the whole shebang.

I don't care how good CR and SF are, and I don't care how good Craig is. He's not Connery and his films are no where near the experience of the first 4.

And I love Craig and CR and SF.

Is SF the best Bond film?

No! of course not. Unless you're talking film-school wise, technically I mean. It's got a brilliant director and cinematographer, a stellar cast and a good song. But it hasn't got a good James Bond story adventure, it hasn't got the most exotic locations, it hasn't got many quintessential elements of what makes James Bond...well...James Bond. So, is it a cracking good film? Yes, absolutely. And very rewatchable. But is the best James Bond film? No. Not in the slightest.

But I did enjoy your review immensely, @Pierce2Daniel.

When did I say Craig was better than Connery? Connery is clearly the best Bond. But IMO CR is ‘up there’ with the early Connery's. No other film in the series is as good as the first 4 and OHMSS I agree. But CR is ‘up there’ IMO.

Ps. Skyfall isn’t.

You didn't, old pal, I just took your lead and went with it ;)

CR would be on one of the other five fingers of the other hand :)

Just out of curiosity, would that other hand also include TSWLM, TLD, GE and perhaps either LALD or LTK?

I'm going to butt in an answer yes to all bar GE (which is my personal opinion). Apologies.

Pierce2Daniel

00Agent wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

Sam Mendes directed the hell out of this film, he dropped the ball slightly with SP. But with SF, he directed it as if his life depended on it. He had a lot to prove with SF - whilst he was an Oscar-winning director. His star had fallen and he was looking a little over praised and coasting of 'American Beauty'. He knew it, hence why he put everything into SF. Thanks to Bond, he's back

I also love how articulate he is. He really convey well what he was trying to do.

Great interviews.
What just dawned on me is that I have seen tons of interviews of Mendes and many others involved with Skyfall, but i never heard John Logan talk about it before.
It's something that i should definitly change.

As a little teaser i found this snippet from the Premiere.


At the end he says it, they wanted to capture the "feeling of Fleming", straight from the Books, which in my opinion they more than succeeded with.

There's a great documentary that heavily features John Logan on the Blu-ray.

Is it online? The documentary is only about an hour.

00Agent

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

00Agent wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

Sam Mendes directed the hell out of this film, he dropped the ball slightly with SP. But with SF, he directed it as if his life depended on it. He had a lot to prove with SF - whilst he was an Oscar-winning director. His star had fallen and he was looking a little over praised and coasting of 'American Beauty'. He knew it, hence why he put everything into SF. Thanks to Bond, he's back

I also love how articulate he is. He really convey well what he was trying to do.

Great interviews.
What just dawned on me is that I have seen tons of interviews of Mendes and many others involved with Skyfall, but i never heard John Logan talk about it before.
It's something that i should definitly change.

As a little teaser i found this snippet from the Premiere.


At the end he says it, they wanted to capture the "feeling of Fleming", straight from the Books, which in my opinion they more than succeeded with.

There's a great documentary that heavily features John Logan on the Blu-ray.

Is it online? The documentary is only about an hour.

Oh i must have seen it then, but probably not since 2013. I will look for some interviews later.

mtm

Mathis1 wrote: »

Birdleson wrote: »

As to M by the coffins, I thought it was a very memorable image, as it was used in the trailers. In fact, until this conversation, I assumed it was one of the iconic images of the film.

Am not a fan of SF, but that was a very strong image in the film, preceded by the explosion which was also memorable!

Glad it’s not just me! :)

Getafix

GoldenGun wrote: »

TripAces wrote: »

Getafix wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

jetsetwilly wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

WhyBond wrote: »

SkyFall is too boring to be the best one. It is just like TWINE part deux with. It suffers from a lack of locales and the action fell flat. It didn't help that the villain was a Hannibal Lecktor clone.

As much hate as TWINE gets at least it is not as dull as SkyFall with way better action" locales, and villains.

SF is actually about something. Which you can't say about every Bond film.

Plus, it as the most jaw-droppingly talented cast and crew - Sam Mendes, John Logan, Roger Deakins, Javier Bardem, Ben Whishaw, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Albert Finney (!), and makes proper use of DC and Judi Dench.

Totally the gold standard of Bond movies. Plus, it introduced the world to Berenice Marlohe......

plus, it's a film intelligent enough to explore how 'Bond became Bond' and the childhood trauma associated to the titular house. which was a stunning piece of production design.....

This is what I hate about SF. I don't want to know how Bond became Bond. Fleming never wrote about it, never wrote about any childhood trauma. This has all been invented by P&W and has nothing to do with Fleming.

I want Bond as the cardboard booby we read about, and watched up until 1989. No real backstory, just a blunt instrument on a new mission.

The closest we ever got to knowing Bond's childhood was at the beginning of OHMSS, when Bond reflects on happy memories of Flake 99 ice creams and building sandcastles - not evil step brothers called Blofeld, or being some traumatised orphan that was desperate to become used and abused by the British government.

This is all reinvented by Beavis and Butthead, and what I utterly despise during the Craig era.

I love it.

When Bond first hears the word ‘Skyfall’, it’s an attempt by the MI6 psychologist to test him. Bond refuses to answer the question which essentially provides the answer itself. There are clearly some unresolved issues from his childhood and a traumatic event that he needs to address. ‘Skyfall’ has specific traumatic resonance with Bond.

When in mortal danger, Bond decides to take M back to Skyfall – the source of his original trauma. I imagine he took her to such a private and personal place because he trusts her. It’s the biggest insight into his personal life that he has offered anyone. Clearlyhe sees M as a friend and something of a surrogate mother.

Later we learn that Bond learned of his parents’ death whilst at Skyfall and he spent his childhood there. Essentially, this was the place where he became Bond and shaped his life. Skyfall created him and led him to his inevitable path of becoming 007.

In destroying the house, Bond is able to confront his past and destroy the painful memories associated with it. Later, in his family chapel, he holds the dying body of his surrogate mother – the woman who has shaped his adult life. Having put his past trauma behind him and now without his surrogate mother, Bond is left to confront a ‘brave new world’ alone.

Reading this just reinforces what several other posts have said already. SF is the most pretentious and one of the dullest Bond films. Describing it as a TWINE remake is spot on.

Because something has depth doesn't mean it's pretentious.

True, though it also goes the other way around. Because something is pretentious it doesn't mean it has depth.

Don't gey me wrong, I am very much into existential art films. SF though, in its desperate attempts to be exactly that, forgets to be a Bond film while it also fails as the former.

Mendes might give its audience many hints that he is saying something important but exactly by doing that it comes off as pretentious and when you look at it up closely there isn't much beneath that surface.

I'd watch Michelangelo Antonioni's trilogy L'avventura, La notte and L'eclisse any day over SF. I prefer these kinds of films when they don't spoon-feed its audience with things like obvious psychological word games or 'I always hated this place'. Please let me think for myself.

A great Bond film for me is either an excellent atmospherical spy thriller like FRWL or TLD, or it, unpretentiously, makes 007 a bit more human like in OHMSS or CR.
If I'm looking for more of a thinking man's film I will gladly sit down for some Antonioni or Ingmar Bergman.

Spot on.
SF is not great art house cinema and it's not great popcorn entertainment either. It's pretentious, shallow and for long stretches quite yawn inducing. Although SP might be duller still.

mtm

Getafix wrote: »

GoldenGun wrote: »

TripAces wrote: »

Getafix wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

jetsetwilly wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

WhyBond wrote: »

SkyFall is too boring to be the best one. It is just like TWINE part deux with. It suffers from a lack of locales and the action fell flat. It didn't help that the villain was a Hannibal Lecktor clone.

As much hate as TWINE gets at least it is not as dull as SkyFall with way better action" locales, and villains.

SF is actually about something. Which you can't say about every Bond film.

Plus, it as the most jaw-droppingly talented cast and crew - Sam Mendes, John Logan, Roger Deakins, Javier Bardem, Ben Whishaw, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Albert Finney (!), and makes proper use of DC and Judi Dench.

Totally the gold standard of Bond movies. Plus, it introduced the world to Berenice Marlohe......

plus, it's a film intelligent enough to explore how 'Bond became Bond' and the childhood trauma associated to the titular house. which was a stunning piece of production design.....

This is what I hate about SF. I don't want to know how Bond became Bond. Fleming never wrote about it, never wrote about any childhood trauma. This has all been invented by P&W and has nothing to do with Fleming.

I want Bond as the cardboard booby we read about, and watched up until 1989. No real backstory, just a blunt instrument on a new mission.

The closest we ever got to knowing Bond's childhood was at the beginning of OHMSS, when Bond reflects on happy memories of Flake 99 ice creams and building sandcastles - not evil step brothers called Blofeld, or being some traumatised orphan that was desperate to become used and abused by the British government.

This is all reinvented by Beavis and Butthead, and what I utterly despise during the Craig era.

I love it.

When Bond first hears the word ‘Skyfall’, it’s an attempt by the MI6 psychologist to test him. Bond refuses to answer the question which essentially provides the answer itself. There are clearly some unresolved issues from his childhood and a traumatic event that he needs to address. ‘Skyfall’ has specific traumatic resonance with Bond.

When in mortal danger, Bond decides to take M back to Skyfall – the source of his original trauma. I imagine he took her to such a private and personal place because he trusts her. It’s the biggest insight into his personal life that he has offered anyone. Clearlyhe sees M as a friend and something of a surrogate mother.

Later we learn that Bond learned of his parents’ death whilst at Skyfall and he spent his childhood there. Essentially, this was the place where he became Bond and shaped his life. Skyfall created him and led him to his inevitable path of becoming 007.

In destroying the house, Bond is able to confront his past and destroy the painful memories associated with it. Later, in his family chapel, he holds the dying body of his surrogate mother – the woman who has shaped his adult life. Having put his past trauma behind him and now without his surrogate mother, Bond is left to confront a ‘brave new world’ alone.

Reading this just reinforces what several other posts have said already. SF is the most pretentious and one of the dullest Bond films. Describing it as a TWINE remake is spot on.

Because something has depth doesn't mean it's pretentious.

True, though it also goes the other way around. Because something is pretentious it doesn't mean it has depth.

Don't gey me wrong, I am very much into existential art films. SF though, in its desperate attempts to be exactly that, forgets to be a Bond film while it also fails as the former.

Mendes might give its audience many hints that he is saying something important but exactly by doing that it comes off as pretentious and when you look at it up closely there isn't much beneath that surface.

I'd watch Michelangelo Antonioni's trilogy L'avventura, La notte and L'eclisse any day over SF. I prefer these kinds of films when they don't spoon-feed its audience with things like obvious psychological word games or 'I always hated this place'. Please let me think for myself.

A great Bond film for me is either an excellent atmospherical spy thriller like FRWL or TLD, or it, unpretentiously, makes 007 a bit more human like in OHMSS or CR.
If I'm looking for more of a thinking man's film I will gladly sit down for some Antonioni or Ingmar Bergman.

Spot on.
SF is not great art house cinema and it's not great popcorn entertainment either. It's pretentious, shallow and for long stretches quite yawn inducing. Although SP might be duller still.

Some people really enjoy it: it’s silly to talk in absolutes when you’re discussing something so subjective. You might find it dull but that doesn’t mean it is, objectively, pretentious.

jetsetwilly

mtm wrote: »

jetsetwilly wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

jetsetwilly wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

WhyBond wrote: »

SkyFall is too boring to be the best one. It is just like TWINE part deux with. It suffers from a lack of locales and the action fell flat. It didn't help that the villain was a Hannibal Lecktor clone.

As much hate as TWINE gets at least it is not as dull as SkyFall with way better action" locales, and villains.

SF is actually about something. Which you can't say about every Bond film.

Plus, it as the most jaw-droppingly talented cast and crew - Sam Mendes, John Logan, Roger Deakins, Javier Bardem, Ben Whishaw, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Albert Finney (!), and makes proper use of DC and Judi Dench.

Totally the gold standard of Bond movies. Plus, it introduced the world to Berenice Marlohe......

plus, it's a film intelligent enough to explore how 'Bond became Bond' and the childhood trauma associated to the titular house. which was a stunning piece of production design.....

This is what I hate about SF. I don't want to know how Bond became Bond. Fleming never wrote about it, never wrote about any childhood trauma. This has all been invented by P&W and has nothing to do with Fleming.

I want Bond as the cardboard booby we read about, and watched up until 1989. No real backstory, just a blunt instrument on a new mission.

The closest we ever got to knowing Bond's childhood was at the beginning of OHMSS, when Bond reflects on happy memories of Flake 99 ice creams and building sandcastles - not evil step brothers called Blofeld, or being some traumatised orphan that was desperate to become used and abused by the British government.

This is all reinvented by Beavis and Butthead, and what I utterly despise during the Craig era.

I love it.

When Bond first hears the word ‘Skyfall’, it’s an attempt by the MI6 psychologist to test him. Bond refuses to answer the question which essentially provides the answer itself. There are clearly some unresolved issues from his childhood and a traumatic event that he needs to address. ‘Skyfall’ has specific traumatic resonance with Bond.

When in mortal danger, Bond decides to take M back to Skyfall – the source of his original trauma. I imagine he took her to such a private and personal place because he trusts her. It’s the biggest insight into his personal life that he has offered anyone. Clearlyhe sees M as a friend and something of a surrogate mother.

Later we learn that Bond learned of his parents’ death whilst at Skyfall and he spent his childhood there. Essentially, this was the place where he became Bond and shaped his life. Skyfall created him and led him to his inevitable path of becoming 007.

In destroying the house, Bond is able to confront his past and destroy the painful memories associated with it. Later, in his family chapel, he holds the dying body of his surrogate mother – the woman who has shaped his adult life. Having put his past trauma behind him and now without his surrogate mother, Bond is left to confront a ‘brave new world’ alone.

And again, this is a new world invented by P&W, nothing remotely to do with Fleming. I take it you are not such a big fan of the novels then?

That’s a bit silly. Are you not a fan of TSWLM because Fleming didn’t invent Stromberg and oil tankers swallowing submarines and spies skiing off cliffs with Union Jack parachutes on their back? Because you’re missing out on a really fun film.

TSWLM is one of my least favourite Bond films, so probably not the best example to give me.

Univex

GoldenGun wrote: »

Univex wrote: »

suavejmf wrote: »

Univex wrote: »

suavejmf wrote: »

whether it's better even than the early Connery's is a subject worthy of debate

It is not! There is no debate there. The first 4 Connery films are untouchable. You put OHMSS on your fifth finger and you've got a hand filled with perfect masterpieces.

Besides, they were so good that we've still rambling about them many many decades after they were released. They started the whole shebang.

I don't care how good CR and SF are, and I don't care how good Craig is. He's not Connery and his films are no where near the experience of the first 4.

And I love Craig and CR and SF.

Is SF the best Bond film?

No! of course not. Unless you're talking film-school wise, technically I mean. It's got a brilliant director and cinematographer, a stellar cast and a good song. But it hasn't got a good James Bond story adventure, it hasn't got the most exotic locations, it hasn't got many quintessential elements of what makes James Bond...well...James Bond. So, is it a cracking good film? Yes, absolutely. And very rewatchable. But is the best James Bond film? No. Not in the slightest.

But I did enjoy your review immensely, @Pierce2Daniel.

When did I say Craig was better than Connery? Connery is clearly the best Bond. But IMO CR is ‘up there’ with the early Connery's. No other film in the series is as good as the first 4 and OHMSS I agree. But CR is ‘up there’ IMO.

Ps. Skyfall isn’t.

You didn't, old pal, I just took your lead and went with it ;)

CR would be on one of the other five fingers of the other hand :)

Just out of curiosity, would that other hand also include TSWLM, TLD, GE and perhaps either LALD or LTK?

Damn it, man, get the hell out of my head ;)
Nah, you’re almost right. Almost. I have a thing for TMWTGG - go figure. But I love TLD and GE immensely. Gotta put some Craig in there, on one of the ten fingers, and that’d be CR, I think. And the tenth finger will always be for the next one. Hope springs eternal ;)

jetsetwilly

Escalus5 wrote: »

There are many things about SKYFALL that annoy the hell out of me. I recall the film beginning to get on my nerves soon after the opening credits, when it's revealed that Bond went off to the beach to drink and sulk and didn't bother to complete his mission first, thereby jeopardizing the lives of other agents. It just seemed like a total betrayal of the character.

The rest of it was dull, poorly-written nonsense. I haven't been able to sit through it a second time.

I think it was P&W attempt to revisit the end of YOLT and the opening of TMWTGG, but getting it completely wrong. As you say, a betrayal of the character. Bond comes across nothing short of a spoilt, sulking teenager, and doesn't tie in with the amnesia ridden Bond gone AWOL in Japan that Fleming wrote about, which gave far more sense and motivation.

WhyBond

suavejmf wrote: »

Skyfall is overrated, it’s a good Bond but it gets overrated because of how big of a hit it was, and so many people who aren’t necessarily huge Bond fans saw it and loved it. So it’s good, but there are definitely 14 Bond films that are better IMO.

In the Craig era, Casino Royale is far far superior....from its first frames, Casino Royale promises to restore the trimmed-down urgency of the early Sean Connery outings as Bond. Casino Royale exceeds expectations, presenting a Bond both leaner and meaner than any that has come before. That this is the best Bond flick in nearly four decades is beyond reasonable dispute; whether it's better even than the early Connery's is a subject worthy of debate.

PS. The 'no gunbarrel' at the start of SF is unforgivable.

Leaner and meaner was done way before Craig's era with Timothy Dalton.

jetsetwilly

jobo wrote: »

00Agent wrote: »

jobo wrote: »

I appreciate the Fleming purists out there, but honestly, the man has been dead for almost sixty years. I am aware there are still segments of unused Fleming material existing, and you could potentialy stitch them together somehow, but the bottom line is that for the series to survive you have to be inventive. And for an ongoing film series depicting the life of one solitary character, it is simply inevitable that some character exploration has to take place, at least from time to time. You can claim, perhaps justified (although that is a matter of opinion), that they have gone a little overboard with this during the Craig era. But the reality is that if Bond remains nothing but a stale and dated stamp icon with no more meat on the bone than what Fleming gave us 60 years ago, he would not survive for long in the modern era.

Nostalgia alone is not enough to drive the series forward. Cinematic Bond has always been dependent on taking risks and evolve with the times. Cubby Broccoli would be the first to admit that.

Whoa, hold your horses there for a second.
This is a point that is very near and dear to my heart. I can see where you are coming from but don't lump all "Fleming purists" together.

I consider myself a Fleming purist, and i can see that influence very much in SF, but it's more of a spiritual connection to Fleming than a literal one. And i believe if the franchise didn't had some connection, be it literal or spiritual, to Fleming, it would be dead in an instant (as it should be, see black/female/transgender Bond and whatever crap).

EoN has always taken great liberties with Flemings writing starting from Dr. No, but they've learned their lesson somewhere down the line in my opinion. But that doesn't mean that you will satisfy everybody, every one has his own interpretation even when reading Fleming. And it will inevitably lead to endless debates in today's world.

Don´t get me wrong, @00Agent. I fully concur that the spirit of Fleming is vital for the series and that the best films are the ones that stay close to it. In fact I consider myself somewhat of a Fleming purist myself. My comment was directly adressing those on the thread that were claiming further character exploration was somehow disrespectful to Fleming because they are not his ideas outright. They miss the point completely I think.

Not at all. I just don't think having Bond suddenly becoming a traumatised character haunted by his childhood, or having Blofeld being his long lost brother is necessary. If you think it is, then sadly you are missing the point.

I'm all for character exploration, as long as it stays close to the roots. Dalton's revenge in LTK explores the emotional side, yet stays true to Fleming, as does Bond in QoS. In SF and SP Mendes took it too far, and pushed the character into areas that Fleming never explored - and it didn't add anything great to either film.

NickTwentyTwo

I'm at a place now where if I had to choose between watching Skyfall or Spectre, I'm going Spectre. I remember Skyfall having a greater positive impact on me than Spectre did in theatres however.

FoxRox

I’ve always preferred SF myself, even back when I enjoyed SP way more.

Octopussy

jetsetwilly wrote: »

jobo wrote: »

00Agent wrote: »

jobo wrote: »

I appreciate the Fleming purists out there, but honestly, the man has been dead for almost sixty years. I am aware there are still segments of unused Fleming material existing, and you could potentialy stitch them together somehow, but the bottom line is that for the series to survive you have to be inventive. And for an ongoing film series depicting the life of one solitary character, it is simply inevitable that some character exploration has to take place, at least from time to time. You can claim, perhaps justified (although that is a matter of opinion), that they have gone a little overboard with this during the Craig era. But the reality is that if Bond remains nothing but a stale and dated stamp icon with no more meat on the bone than what Fleming gave us 60 years ago, he would not survive for long in the modern era.

Nostalgia alone is not enough to drive the series forward. Cinematic Bond has always been dependent on taking risks and evolve with the times. Cubby Broccoli would be the first to admit that.

Whoa, hold your horses there for a second.
This is a point that is very near and dear to my heart. I can see where you are coming from but don't lump all "Fleming purists" together.

I consider myself a Fleming purist, and i can see that influence very much in SF, but it's more of a spiritual connection to Fleming than a literal one. And i believe if the franchise didn't had some connection, be it literal or spiritual, to Fleming, it would be dead in an instant (as it should be, see black/female/transgender Bond and whatever crap).

EoN has always taken great liberties with Flemings writing starting from Dr. No, but they've learned their lesson somewhere down the line in my opinion. But that doesn't mean that you will satisfy everybody, every one has his own interpretation even when reading Fleming. And it will inevitably lead to endless debates in today's world.

Don´t get me wrong, @00Agent. I fully concur that the spirit of Fleming is vital for the series and that the best films are the ones that stay close to it. In fact I consider myself somewhat of a Fleming purist myself. My comment was directly adressing those on the thread that were claiming further character exploration was somehow disrespectful to Fleming because they are not his ideas outright. They miss the point completely I think.

Not at all. I just don't think having Bond suddenly becoming a traumatised character haunted by his childhood, or having Blofeld being his long lost brother is necessary. If you think it is, then sadly you are missing the point.

I'm all for character exploration, as long as it stays close to the roots. Dalton's revenge in LTK explores the emotional side, yet stays true to Fleming, as does Bond in QoS. In SF and SP Mendes took it too far, and pushed the character into areas that Fleming never explored - and it didn't add anything great to either film.

+1